SAT PREET KAUR Vs. RAJU SINGH RAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal arises out of the award dated 30th January 2004 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 6,00,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum to the appellant from the date of filing of the petition.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts in nutshell are as follows: sh. Surjeet Singh, aged 30 yrs doing business of interior decorator in the name and style of M/s Jeet Interior Decorator, on 29th November 1994 was coming in the car, bearing registration no. DL 2c C 1416 from Faridabad towards tilak Nagar via Ring Road along with his brother-in-law, Sh. Surinderpal Singh. At the Ring Road, Mayapuri Flyover, Naraina, New Delhi a truck bearing registration no. HYA 2855 was stationed in a most reckless manner near the central pattri and no parking light or any other backlight or any stone marking around the truck was made. At about 11:40 pm the said maruti van reached mayapuri flyover and by the time the deceased Sh. Surjit Singh who was on the driving wheel when realized that the said truck was stationary and not moving, he tried to avoid the collision with the truck but the right front portion of the van hit the rear portion of the truck with such a force that Sh. Surjit singh died on the spot. The claims petition was filed on 7/4/1995 and award was made on 30th January 2004 Aggrieved with the said award present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

(3.) SH. Rajiv Kochar, counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the learned tribunal has committed grave error in taking income of the deceased @ rs. 9,500/- p. m. . The court did not consider the future increase in the income while calculating monthly income of the deceased. The counsel stated that had the tribunal applied the law laid down in the celebrated decision of the Hon"ble apex Court in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179 and U. P. State road Transport Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362, the gross average income would come out as Rs. 13,500 per month in place of mere Rs. 9,500 per month as assessed by the tribunal. It was further maintained by the counsel that upon deducting 1/3rd personal expenses the monthly dependency would come out as rs. 9,000 per month in place of Rs. 6,500 per month as determined by the tribunal. The counsel further averred that the learned Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 20 in place of 15, as the deceased died at the age of 30 years when the appellant nos. 1 to 3 were of very young age. It was also pointed out by the counsel that the family of the deceased has a history of longevity of life, which is clear from the fact that the father of the deceased is still alive and therefore, the tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 20. The counsel averred that the tribunal ought to have awarded the amount claimed i. e. Rs. 30 lacs with costs and interest as compensation to the appellants. The counsel also submitted that the learned Tribunal should have awarded interest @ 18% per annum in place of 8% per annum. Assailing the findings further, it was contended that the conclusions drawn by the tribunal were incorrect as the deceased was not negligent, rather he tried to avert the collision with the truck which was unauthorizedly and illegally parked on the road, therefore, the tribunal erred in deducting 50% of the compensation i. e. Rs. 6 Lacs towards contributory negligence of the deceased. The counsel also urged that looking at the age of the appellants the tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. 10 lacs towards pain and suffering, 10 lacs towards loss of estate and another 5 lacs towards loss of consortium.